| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | Bugaboo70325 (0)
11/17/2005 | This would add a great twist to the show. Something needs to be done to make Survivor less repetitive.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Jason1972 (3)
12/13/2002 | They should do that, because who ever wins the necklace always influences votes and shakes up alliances. It's the first thing they do after winning the challenge and it throws things off big time so doing this would make things more challenging.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | faniam (0)
08/03/2002 | Think this is a good idea--new twist to the game.Would make a difference on if you would want to win and give up your right to vote or not.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | benfergy (0)
02/02/2002 | Good idea. This may discourage the same person from winning constantly, while not absolutely prohibiting them from doing so.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | brookeg (0)
02/28/2001 | This may sound like a stupid question - but I'm really not sure what this improvement means? When a tribe wins an Immunity Challenge, don't they get waived from voting off one of their members in tribal council? Please someone explain this to me! Thanks.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Zarbon (0)
12/28/2000 | That'd be sooooo stupid!!!!!
When I'm on survivor I'm gonna want to vote when I get immunity. Besides they'd have to come up with something new when they're down to 3 survivors! Jeremy iz THE MAN!!!!!
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | jimbob (0)
09/26/2000 | this is how that one zipperhead kept control over the whole game
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | briggee (0)
09/18/2000 | Good idea...they win immunity and don't have to vote. Off the hook and could add a twist to the game.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| joe&bun (0)
09/10/2000 | An interesting twist.....but it would change the dynamics of how the game is played......& how would the game be played when you get down to the final 3??
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | swan1763et (0)
08/31/2000 | DITTO the words of #3
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | magellan (164)
08/31/2000 | I like the idea of introducing a potential downside to winning the Immunity Challenge. The more complications / head games that are thrown at the contestants, the better. There is no way to prevent alliances, but there are little things that can be done to weaken them. And as the poster below says, maybe Richard doesn't dare win that immunity challenge down the stretch if it means one less vote for his alliance.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Munson (7)
08/31/2000 | I like that one of the benefits of winning an immunity challenge is to be able to vote without any fear of repercussion (at least for that vote). No need to change that.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | kevi9896om (0)
08/31/2000 | I LOVE this idea !!! In this way say, when Richard won an immunity for the "fire making race" his ALLIANCE would have been WEAKENED because it would have lost his vote ... I think it is a great way to take just a little bit (and totally unpredictable) of power away from the next alliances that come up in Survivor II.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-13 OF 13 | View All |
